arash khoshghadam

<p>After plowing through the entire net to find the right answer to my question " which one is really better, sRGB or aRGB " I am here with a terrible headache and puzzled even more than the start. I have not still found a reasonably clear answer to my question. My current color management profile is:<br>

-My Canon 50D is set to shoot aRGB.<br>

-My CS4 color space is aRGB (1998)<br>

-My OS (vista 64-bit) is set to " <em><strong>Device profile: Adobe RGB (1998)</strong> </em><br>

<em><strong> " Viewing conditions profile: WCS profile for ICC viewing conditions" </strong> </em><br>

-I get prints using Epson R800 ( the color space of which I am not certain about !)<br>

I have been using the above settings for more than 5 years and I have never suspected anything wrong with the entire stuff, but recently I have been suspecting something maybe wrong with the direction I have been going. sometimes, my prints come out dull in color and a little washed-out.<br>

Now, The problem is I am not sure the aRGB profile works for my monitor and I feel I have to find out if I should stay with these settings or I have to migrate back to the sRGB world.<br>

I would appreciate if anybody can clear up the mystery whether sRGB or aRGB are worth investing in.</p>

<p>It is a good idea to use a UV filter in front of the lens to prevent accidental scratches though using such a filter increases the possibility of flare. I always use a Hama UV infront of all my lenses spacially my 60mm macro. it is a good one and has served me for years. It has no effect on exposure metering.</p>

<p>40D is superior to 400D but 500D brings a whole new features to the equation though the body and handling is not quite as 40D. I'd suggest upgrading to 50D as the body is stronger and rugged If you ignore the HD video shooting capability of the T1i.</p>

<p>I'd say you'd better stick with your CS3. CS4 is still pretty much a beta version with some bugs till Adobe finds out what us bugging the customers to fix the problems. You can update the ACR yourself moving from ACR v4.0 to ACR 4.6 with more controls over the sharpening and clarity functions. I have a CS3 and I don't see why I have to bother with installing CS4. It is logical to wait for a CS5 to see what ace the Adobe guys have up their sleeves.</p>

<p>After years of working with the ACR and delving into the nuke and crannies of this incredible plug-in, I came across a review of my new 50D in dpreview.com. In the heat of the discussion, there was a point comparing the virtues of ACR and DPP trying to give a clear picture of each software's virtues. DPP was described as being faithful to the color rendition and ACR as being a little contrasty when rendering colors. I fell prey to this vis-a-vis and installed my DPP. To tell you the truth, it is the same crap as 4 years ago at the time I got my 20D; the same watering down of the controlling over the work flow though there are some new features like control over the ALO ( Auto lighting optimizer ) and receiving data from the lens on your camera regarding the PIC ( Peripheral illumination Correction ); the exact counterpart of manipulation of vignetting in ACR ( I don't see why someone doesn't want to sweat over the correction of vignetting manually !). DPP now offers transferring the images to Photoshop which was what I tested and you won't believe if I tell you that it took three time as much as what ACR takes to send the images into PS CS3. All the other stuffs in DPP are the same as the previous breeds. I can't still figure out why the Canon engineers haven't learned their lessons as to figure out what works best for the photographers. ACR 4.6 is far superior than DPP in many areas regarding the workflow. I would like to know your perspectives. I appreciate.</p>

<p>You can also go for the micro adjustment of your lens using the AF microadjustment option in XT1. there may be an alleged back or front focusing error in your lens. Check it out using an AF micro adjustment chart on your monitor.</p>

<p>I am a bit confused. A while ago, i was puzzled be some photography forum postings claiming they have got their <em>50D</em> with the <strong>firmware 1.0.5 </strong> . the current firmware on my <em>50D</em> is <strong>1.0.3 </strong> . I was compelled to check it out in the Canon site. the latest firmware available was <strong>1.0.3</strong> . I am still a bit unsure about the situation. Has anybody heard the same rumor? and Dose anybody have a <em>50D</em> with the <strong>1.0.5 firmwar</strong> e?</p>

<p>Puppy is right. shell out for the repair.</p>

<p>50D is much more handy than 40D because of its more user-friendly menus, and you got to compare the resolution of the LCD alone to find out how crappy 40D is (950000 pixels vs 230000 respectively). the live view functions in 50D outweighs 40D and the AF micro adjustment in 50D is really superb.</p>

<p>I think it is a worthy upgrade and a number of features including the live view mode specially on 50D is not just a mixed bag as some here have noted. it is a very versatile and useful feature that saves the day when looking through the viewfinder at awkward angles is really impossible. sometimes you need to hold the camera high above your head and sometimes close to the ground. 50D also offers 14 bit processing for a smoother tonal transfer. thats 16328 color per channel vs 4096 color per channel in 12 bit processors : More muscle for the versatility in post processing. AF micro adjustment in 50D is wonderful and the Highlight tone priority (HTP) and the Auto Lighting Optimizer (ALO) with three levels of adjustments are wonderful. the LCD has more resolution and overal size. I would certainly upgrade from 400D if I were you. your alternative choice can also be to wait for the 500D to come out. 500D is identical to 50D in many features with an additional possibility of shooting HD video.</p>

I agree with Emre Safak. Imagenomic portraiture is very perfect. I love the plug-in. It is fast, user-friendly, automated without the hassles I used to face in Face Studio. it detects the face and applies mask in a variety of preset combinations plus full control over sharpness, softness, white balance, brightness and contrast bringing to the face softening literature a whole new meaning.

CS3 is flawless but is heavy burden on a slow limited system; Paint Shop Pro XI is nice too. Doesn't go hand in hand with CS3 but handles well and goes better with slow computers and tight budgets.

sometimes, the real nature of the RAW is hidden behind a load of what has been said about this file format. he truth is that RAW files come directly from the image sensor which is a 12-bit device (X3) with a very

wide dynamic range and more flexibility. There is no such thing in RAW world as interpolation, so you get everything in real, but the moment you start to manipulate the image, tweaking the exposure and the stuff is the time you have started to change the codes and interpolation. An overexposed or underexposed RAW file has better chance of survival since it is processed in your computer,using a faster and more sophisticated CPU than that of the camera and more marked flexibility, but the noise is there specially in the shadows and if you tweak excessively you get banding in the evenly-colored or blank space. higher ISO as some friends here have suggested is way better since there is no need to tweak everything. your only concern will be to eliminate the noise which can be done in excellent softwares such as Noise Ninja ( if you master it of course )

Dear Jonathan

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fact is that high-sensitivity high-iso films have their own problems dealing with bigger Silver particles. They become noisy too, and to tell you the truth, I'd rather shoot digital to be able to cope with the noise by software than shooting film with little chemical-process option back there in the darkroom.

My approach to Black and White production in channel mixer is somewhat a bit unconventional but it works: I don't touch Monochromatic. Instead, I play with the sliders to eventually get the nicest color rendition; then, I click Monochromatic and the produced black and white is always satisfactory this way. I also keep a close watch on the histogram all the time not to let the highlights over exposed. Since image sensors are more sensitive to green color than the other two ( and in actuality there are more green-filtered photosites ), the green slider is always the one I manipulate most. My experience shows red slider should be somewhere around 20-30% with minimum manipulation of blue; of course, this depends heavily on the image.

Bruce

 

Thanks for your pointing out the shortcoming. Actually, Dave and Candy are on the right track addressing the issue. What I mean by tonal gradation is the situation in which you get some separate bands where there must be smooth transition of gray tones. It becomes something like steps.

 

Dave,

 

I always shoot Raw for its controllability and less destructive adjustments. Your help is appreciated, Dave, but I think color gamut is not the problem since image sensors are color-blinded and the base of any color in either digital or analogue field is gray except black and white. Some times, the tonal gradation is visible even in the Raw

converter.

I have long got tired of the phenomenon. Some of my images look nastily ruined

by the problem and I am helpless. I would appreciate directions showing me how I

can avoid running into it and how I can get rid of it once it's there.<div></div>

The new look is GREAT, but certainly not as great as adding some more options like " Give this person a gift subscription " and the e-mail window which opens making it a cinch to send e-mail. Thanks to all the guys backstage who are striving to improve this environment.

from Kolakchal series<div></div>

Hi Jonathan

 

I am not sure I have exactly figured out what your problem is. Are you wondering why it happens or are you trying to seek a way to get rid of the problem post-process?

 

Noise in long exposure is an inherent problem in image sensor literature. They get warm, the electrons overflow into adjacent photosites and the trouble begins. variation in electron level causes the green and purple spots. You can get rid of noise not in the camera

Raw software or even ACR in photoshop which I think is ill-equipped to offer a reasonable remedy. Noise Ninja software is a good remedy to consider post-process. You have to learn to live with this inherent technical short coming in the image sensor design till engineering science can find a radical solution in betterment of the image sensor design. Until then ....

<div></div>

From the Kolakchal series<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

All the answers here are educated, but there is one thing nobody addressed. The point and shoot cameras are basically different in technical specifications than DSLRs. Point & Shoot is just a commercial jargon which fails to accurately paint a picture to describe differences

between these two classes of cameras. A digital DSLR even when set on the preconfigured programs can't be called point and shoot. first of all, point and shoot cameras are equipped mostly with very small image sensors (1/2.5", 1/1.8", and the like). Have you ever seen a DSLR with these image sensor dimensions ? The lens of a P&S is not changeable, and there is no real viewer to accurately compose. They are merely equipped with a separate lens which moves in conjunction with the lens, but the usage of which is marred by Paralex error, so if the squabble is on the commercial jargon, then this debate is useless since language is too flawed to enter this debate. It's just like the word AIRCRAFT. the dictionary definition is " whatever travels in the air", so our definition covers even a balloon or helicopter, but how many times have you referred to a helicopter as aircraft. It's true that we can POINT and SHOOT a digital SLR, but that doesn't mean it's a "point and shoot" camera. A word or jargon finds its place in language when a number of environmental issues such as what most people use it for and when it is used are defined no matter what we can creatively reason personally, so if a helicopter travels in the air doesn't mean I can explain to a child that what he is watching is an aircraft because the majority still call it Helicopter, for majority of people aircraft is airplane which is an accurate description of what it is in actuality even if this usage is seen as deviation from what dictionary suggests. For most people, a P&S camera is the one which can be tucked into pocket, does all the adjustments by itself, and is probably way cheaper than a DSLR.